University of Graz Responds to Parncutt’s calls for death penalty for “deniers”

UPDATE: 2PM PST After more complaints were lodged today by WUWT readers about the watered down version of Parncutt’s essay which had replaced the original on the University of Graz website, it was removed and replaced with an apology. See below in the body of the story. – Anthony

UPDATE2: 2:55:PM PST In an email received today from Skeptical Science contributor Dana Nuccitelli, he has flat out refused to distance himself or the SkS website publicly from the Parncutt essay. Readers may recall that Parncutt used SkS as a reference in his essay calling for the death penalty. No word yet on whether John Cook (owner of the website) agrees and no word yet from DeSmog blog. – Anthony

The University of Graz is shocked and appalled by the article and rejects its arguments entirely. The University places considerable importance on respecting all human rights and does not accept inhuman statements. Furthermore, the University of Graz points out clearly that a personal and individual opinion which is not related to scientific work cannot be tolerated on websites of the University.

Helmut Konrad
Dean, Faculty of Humanities and the Arts

===========================

Here is Hoffer’s letter to the University of Graz:

I’ve sent the rector a complaint as worded below. Should I receive a reply (I know, unlikely) I will post it here as well:

I [am] writing to you in protest of the remarks made by Richard Parncutt. While the university has done the right thing by removing these remarks from their website, that is hardly strong enough action. I’m sure you need no reminder that advocating for forced “re-education” and death penalties for one’s beliefs carries with it the stench of barbarism from history’s darkest chapters. I am not one of those who “deny” the science of global warming, in fact the opposite. But having studied the science closely, I’ve also concluded that many of the draconian measures proposed to mitigate global warming would themselves cause more harm than good. As a single example, we are already converting crops into bio-fuels, in essence burning the food while millions around the world are starving. Are the deaths of those people similarly on Richard Parncutt’s conscious? By his own standard, should he not be punished in the precise same manner he proposes to punish others?

The issues regarding climate science are many and complex. They deserve to be debated publicly. Indeed, it is crucial that they be debated publicly that facts, logic and science may prevail over politics, rhetoric, and in the case of those such as Richard Parncutt, hate speech reminiscent of last centuries darkest horrors.

The university owes the world not simply an apology for what appeared on their web site, but a strong and unequivocal statement denouncing this blatant attempt to silence the debate by threat of violence. – David M. Hoffer

===============================

I checked to make certain he is a representative of the university. He is listed on the University of Graz website here.

We are still waiting for DeSmog Blog and “Skeptical Science” to disavow this man’s ideas, since he lists them as references in his hate speech essay. The original is archived here:

Perhaps Herr Konrad should be reminded of what he wrote. His email is on his University page here.

UPDATE: WUWT readers get results. After more complaints were lodged today by WUWT readers about the watered down version (PDF here) of Parncutt’s essay which had replaced the original, it was removed and replaced with an apology. It seems Monckton of Brenchley was instrumental in the about-face. This is what is there now:

Global warming

I wish to apologize publicly to all those who were offended by texts that were previously posted at this address. I made claims that were incorrect and comparisons that were completely inappropriate, which I deeply regret. I would also like to thank all those who took the time and trouble to share their thoughts in emails.

In October 2012, I wrote the following on this page: “I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases, and I have always supported the clear and consistent stand of Amnesty International on this issue. The death penalty is barbaric, racist, expensive, and is often applied by mistake.” I wish to confirm that this is indeed my opinion. I have been a member of Amnesty International for at least 14 years, and I admire and support their consistent stance on this issue.

Richard Parncutt, 27 December 2012

The opinions expressed on this page are the personal opinions of the author.

209 thoughts on “University of Graz Responds to Parncutt’s calls for death penalty for “deniers””

Good response from the University. Sure, he’ll get a stiff talking to. Fire him and you send him directly into the arms of fellow extremists. It is better that he become somewhat of a social pariah and then can come to understand his untenable stance.

Of course the poor sod is entitled to express his opinion however odious but he should not claim special knowledge by using his title Professor outside his professed field nor implicate his University by posting on its web site. I do think he needs help but, after reading the Gummer narrative, I think he may not be alone in that. But how does one give them help without infringing the very axioms of freedom of expression?

I particularly liked the comment about burning food while millions starve. I see hundreds of acres of corn in the Shenandoah Valley grown specifically for ethanol. You can’t blame the farmers. They are having a hard enough time to survive. But you can blame government policies that make make it more more profitable to grow fuel instead of food.

We will never be able to count the deaths caused and lives saved by this policy. But the deaths caused are now and certain and the lives saved are future and uncertain.

We are still waiting for DeSmog Blog and “Skeptical Science” to disavow this man’s ideas. Wouldn’t it be more effective to simply ignore him completely? Why would you want to give his article further publicity?

John Sutcliffe says:
December 27, 2012 at 11:43 am
We are still waiting for DeSmog Blog and “Skeptical Science” to disavow this man’s ideas. Wouldn’t it be more effective to simply ignore him completely? Why would you want to give his article further publicity?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So, from what I understand, the good professor Richard Parncutt, professor of musicology (whatever the hell that is) at the rip roaringly batty, University of Gaz, in calling for the execution of climate change ‘deniers’ had this to say:

” I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases…”

So, Rick, are you opposed to the death penalty in all cases except when you’re not opposed to the death penalty in all cases? So, are there actually ‘some’ cases that do not fit the definition of ‘all’ cases? Is ‘all’ a limiting word? Or, is it an unlimiting word? Or, is the definition changed when it’s preceded by the word ‘always?’ Or, are ‘always’ and ‘all’ magnetic words, but one’s positive, the other negative, so they repel each other? Therefore, neither of them mean anything? Or, are they mysterious, magical words? Words that can be honest. Or deceptive. And it’s not true that they don’t mean anything. They just mean something other than what they mean. Parallel universe words? Tell me Rick, you deep thinker you, you paragon of wisdom, tell me, what do they mean?

They’ve already eliminated Parncutt’s blatherings from their website and made it clear that they condemn his arguments. I’m not sure he has a position of any tenure; last I heard, he was a sort of visiting professor. Thus their authority to do any more is uncertain. I don’t think it’s productive to expect or endorse any further action by the University at this time. He seems to have had serious personnel issues in the past, and I suspect he may already be viewed as a loose cannon there. Let’s not give away any of the moral high ground by ill-considered calls for dismissal or suggestions that he be hoist by his own petard.

Don’t be so precious. Sure what he wrote is offensive but you guys are the ones that rejoice in the 1st Amendment. People should lose their jobs for expressing their opinions only in the most extreme circumstances. Otherwise the USA is no better than other totalitarian states.

Before we discuss the death penalty for certain groups of people, should we not have a discussion as to whether or not ALL letters of CAGW are in fact true? I would suggest a good place to start would be to have a debate between Christopher Monckton and Al Gore.

Considering Desmogblog was built around the writings of US anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan, whose 2004 “Boiling Point” book’s chapter 3 is titled “Criminals against Humanity”, it is doubtful Desmog would forcefully disavow Parncutt’s ideas out of a plausible fear that he might point to exactly where he got those ideas from.

Konrad,
I would like to thank you for your clear and firm response on the matter.

However, I note that while the ugly remarks originally made by Parncutt have since been removed, they have been replaced. The current commentary, while more subtle, nonetheless proposes that punishment be meted out to those who have a specific opinion on the science, and that the death penalty should at least be considered as part of the range of options. Parncutt’s statement in his preamble that he is against the death penalty hardly rings true in that context. Further, your policy, as articulated in your reply to me, reads:

“Furthermore, the University of Graz points out clearly that a personal and individual opinion which is not related to scientific work cannot be tolerated on websites of the University.”

Parncutt’s statement as it currently stands on your web site hardly meets that standard. As a consequence, I regard your reply and the steps you have publicly taken in dealing with this matter to be inadequate.

Like the inventor of the guillotine who found it cut their own head off just as easily as anyone else, those making these silly comments to “cut off their heads” are likely to be setting the seeds of intolerance which champions their own demise.

Re: AllanJ –Where exactly in the US are farmers having a hard time “surviving?” They have had record income the last few years; farm land values have more than doubled in the last 4 years; they are the “wealthiest” group in the US, exceeding doctors, lawyers, CPA’s, dentists, etc.

[quite probably, but how about a link rather than just an assertion? . . thanks . . mod]

Why would anyone want him to be ignored. He is a veritable gold mine, and I say let’s mine him for all it’s worth. I think it’s good to put his university on the spot, and I think it’s good they rejected his murderous mind set. But I do not think they should shut him up at all. He should be free to speak to all the world. Let Parncutt by Parncutt. A prime candidate for the freak show, let him swallow his swords and entertain us all.

In 2050 people will look back on him the same way they look back on any of the nutty eugenicists, the guy that invented frontal lobotomy, and the doctors collecting human physiology information during the Holocaust. Yeah, he’ll have a sore hand for a little while as he continues to brainwash another generation.

Konrad,
Since sending my email below it has been brought to my attention that the watered down version of Parncutt’s have also been replaced, now with a statement that he apologizes, rejects the death penalty, and is a member of Amnesty International. I fail to see what his membership in Amnesty International has to do with the matter. That he belongs to an organization that stands diametrically opposed to the very measures he advocated not once, but twice, on your web site hardly excuses him. I believe the expression “wolf in sheep’s clothing” may well be an apt descriptor, and Amnesty International ought to be embarrassed that they count among their membership one who abuses their cause by using them as a cloak to hide the sheep.

I do thank both you and the University however for the steps you have taken in response to his egregious remarks.

OK, the guy has apologized. Let’s accept it and move on. No need to continue punishing the repentant. Forgiveness tends to soften the offender so that he becomes more aware of his failings and learns not to repeat them; severity only embitters.

————–
Several have mentioned tenure. I have no idea how such an issue is handled in other countries. In the US, tenure has morphed from protection for academic research and publication, unpopular as it might be to some, to a job security function, unpopular as that might seem to others.

AllanJ you write “But you can blame government policies that make make it more more profitable to grow fuel instead of food.”

I disagree Countries like the USA and Canada grow more food than is required by our populations. Why is food any different from any other resource that we might have an excess of? Should we be required to share all our excess resources with the rest of the world? For example, here in Canada we have a lot of fresh water, more than we need. Must we be forced to share it with others?

In any event, to me the proper source of ethanol is not food, but waste agricultural products. This may turn out to be economically viable, but on the other hand it may not. It is only because Poet has made a profit from food ethanol, and acquired a considerable amount of expertise in doing so, that they are now, with private money, trying to turn a small amount of the corn stover, into ethanol. All this waste product is not required for agriculture, and could be a substantial source of a renewable fuel which can be stored.

Don’t be so precious. Sure what he wrote is offensive but you guys are the ones that rejoice in the 1st Amendment. People should lose their jobs for expressing their opinions only in the most extreme circumstances. Otherwise the USA is no better than other totalitarian states.
========================
Let’s have a look at this one, and see who is being precious.

First Amendment – this concerns freedom of the press in the US. Parncott is an employee of a public institution of Austria, posting on a university website which has disavowed his views and obviously forced his retraction of said views. The University of Graz would be justified in firing Parncutt for expressing neo-facist views or advocating the execution of the Pope. We are justified in our condemnation of him. Interesting that you yourself do not see it as such.

The University of Graz is in Austria, not in the USA. If Parncutt is fired, what does that have to do with the USA? If people from all quarters of the globe condemn Parncutt, how does that reflect on the USA? By other totalitarian states, I assume that you mean Australia under the Guillard regime.

Hopefully all the correspondences from those concerned at Parncutt’s behaviour are keeping in mind that the other people at Uni Graz are reacting to something exploding into their world a day or two after Christmas (a not business as usual day at Austrian unis I’m sure. Let’s try to embody a little of the generosity of the season and be understanding of their perspective too.

Furthermore, the University of Graz points out clearly that a personal and individual opinion which is not related to scientific work cannot be tolerated on websites of the University.

Well, it’s their school, so they’re free to make up farcical rules. I would actually rather they kept the statement as-is, much like certain parts of Germany & Poland have a few museums to remind people of what goes on when certain political philosophies are unchecked by morality.

Having dealt with warmists on a daily basis, none of this surprises me. Some may not be so blatant but the attitudes run along the same lines. Im sure most comments are in jest but there is an underlying subtext to the psychology of those who agree with him.

I disagree Countries like the USA and Canada grow more food than is required by our populations. Why is food any different from any other resource that we might have an excess of?

An excess of foodstuffs tends to reduce the price of those foodstuffs. & even if it doesn’t matter to you, as someone who cooks for himself, I enjoy spending less feeding myself:
I buy beans now for 99¢/lb., less than 8 years ago, they were 29¢/lb. Premium shortgrain rice was less than 10¢/lb & now is very close to $1/lb. Basically everything I eat or cook with is 3-20x what it was less than a decade ago. Some of that is the simple cost of transportation (fuel), the growing itself (more fuel, fertilizer, even more fuel for irrigation), & the overhead of business (electricity, etc), but quite a bit of it is the absurd waste of burning food in your car’s engine.

His apology seems sincere, and I bear him no ill will. His statement about his opposition to the death penalty does seem bizarre though, given what he said initially.

I wish to apologize publicly to all those who were offended by texts that were previously posted at this address. I made claims that were incorrect and comparisons that were completely inappropriate, which I deeply regret. I would also like to thank all those who took the time and trouble to share their thoughts in emails.

In October 2012, I wrote the following on this page: “I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases, and I have always supported the clear and consistent stand of Amnesty International on this issue. The death penalty is barbaric, racist, expensive, and is often applied by mistake.” I wish to confirm that this is indeed my opinion. I have been a member of Amnesty International for at least 14 years, and I admire and support their consistent stance on this issue.

Might I point out that this odious character Parncutt (according to Wiki) is in fact Australian NOT Austrian, and comes from Melbourne?
I imagine they are intensely embarrassed in Graz, and I will be surprised if this ends here.

Well, he’s apologised for some very nasty (but also childish and naive) comments, so I think we should leave him alone now and get on with seeing if DeSmugBlag and NotVerySkepticalLackofScience are prepared to condemn his initial comments.
It would be interesting to see how they react as I believe we should keep calling out these human-hating ‘activists’ to expose their nasty side to the world.
Over to you John Cook…..

I’m a bit rusty at reading German, but that first sentence strikes me as quite strongly worded. Helmut Konrad’s response is quite refreshing when compared to the mealy-mouthed white-washes that periodically come out of the Marxist leaning US educational institutions.

David, I thank you again for the clear, unambiguous and well formulated letter and for taking the needed action.
You have been perfectly right in putting the beams on showing to everybody what was crawling under the stone and demanding that the proper actions are taken!

federico says:
December 27, 2012 at 12:59 pm
“Parncutt has some tradition in asking for executions. Look in Wikipedia and here:”

The text in which he called for the execution of CO2AGW doubters was also the one in which he expressed the desire to kill the pope. In the case of the pope because the catholic church opposes contraceptive measures.

Parncutt’s basic idea was to execute people who cause the death of future people; an idea he might have gotten from “Minority Report”; he seems to think that climate models are like the precogs in the Phil Dick short story / movie; a fallacy that is popular amongst the mathematically challenged populous.

In the case of the pope, not even computer models are needed as it is to Parncutt obvious that the pope causes the death of future people.

(I’m referring to Parncutt Mk 1; not to the later revisions of his work)

Arthur Dent says:
December 27, 2012 at 12:16 pm
“Don’t be so precious. Sure what he wrote is offensive but you guys are the ones that rejoice in the 1st Amendment. People should lose their jobs for expressing their opinions only in the most extreme circumstances. ”

Richard Parncutt has replaced his “Global warming” post by the following apology:

Global warming
I wish to apologize publicly to all those who were offended by texts that were previously posted at this address. I made claims that were incorrect and comparisons that were completely inappropriate, which I deeply regret. I would also like to thank all those who took the time and trouble to share their thoughts in emails.

In October 2012, I wrote the following on this page: “I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases, and I have always supported the clear and consistent stand of Amnesty International on this issue. The death penalty is barbaric, racist, expensive, and is often applied by mistake.” I wish to confirm that this is indeed my opinion. I have been a member of Amnesty International for at least 14 years, and I admire and support their consistent stance on this issue.

Richard Parncutt, 27 December 2012

The opinions expressed on this page are the personal opinions of the author.

While what got all the attention was the “death penalty”, what I find most interesting is the new notion that we can prosecute people for future victims “probably” caused by present actions, or even more indirectly by legal political speech and action preventing adoption of policies which “probably” would have prevented them. Let us suppose Mitt Romney had won the last election and let us suppose he appointed Cabinet members who were not believers in CAGW scenarios. Just who would the criminals be? Romney? His cabinet members? The voters who put them there? So many potential villians to select from.

We have gotten freedom of speech so turned upside down in the US and elsewhere that we have forgotten entirely its original purpose. Even (especially?) our courts are confused: they have ruled that nude dancing is “protected freedom of expression”, as are spoiled celebrities public use of vulgar, obscene and profane language. And yet criticizing certain protected classes may be deemed “hate speech” and prosecuted.

The US Constitution has a First Amendment precisely to protect people who criticize the government, its elected and appointed officials and its policies. And to guarantee those people the right to communicate with others and to organize legal actions to change the government’s policies, including replacing elected officials.

In the history of civilization, it only took three thousand years or so before ordinary citizens anywhere had this right and a few thousand more before it was common; you’d think there would be more awareness of just how precious it is. Yet we tolerate cossetted academics living off the public purse casually demanding that right be abridged not for actual demonstrated damages, but for some model projection of what damages might result.

There is a word to describe the unjustified belief you know more than you really do: arrogance. But for the supreme arrogance of believing you know what is most likely unknowable we have to turn to Greek: hubris.

Professor Parncutt is part of the herd mentality academic totalitarians who would gleefuly take from others the very freedoms to whcih they owe their priviliged existence. Regardless of competance in his academic discipline he should be firmly but non-violently shown the door. Maybe if he spends some time mucking out barns for a living, he will learn to spot Bulls**t when he sees it, and especially when it comes out if his own mouth.

“We are still waiting for DeSmog Blog and “Skeptical Science” to disavow this man’s ideas, since he lists them as references in his hate speech essay.”

Don’t hold your breath. Skeptical Science for one is actively promoting the meme being a denier is crime against humanity in itself. Make no mistake, google finds 3,730 references to the concept at that site. True, most of them are in comments, but I have first hand experience with moderation policy there and can tell you John Cook and his ilk would hardly tolerate so many comments going against their genuine world view.

Therefore they would never ever “disavow this man’s ideas” until they disavow their own.

Don’t be so precious. Sure what he wrote is offensive but you guys are the ones that rejoice in the 1st Amendment. People should lose their jobs for expressing their opinions only in the most . Otherwise the USA is no better than other totalitarian states. ”

Parncutt’s vicious justification for the exemplary execution of “prominent” dissenters, presumably to provide a deterrent for the rest of us not to express dissenting positions against the prevailing hegemony of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hyposthesis, was published throughout the world. As such his word act comes within the jurisdictions where it was published, including in his homeland Australia. In Australia what he wrote comes close to a threat of terrorism, which can be roughly and relevantly defined as a threat or an act of violence for political purposes. He does have some defences to such a charge. In addition in Australia we do not have an absolute right to express thought. Parncutt, an Australian, did not just express an “opinion”. He mounted a full blown argument for exemplary and targeted killing for a political purpose.
The silence of the warmist nomenklature in Australia ( a vast heaving bureaucracy and network of jobbing scientists, financial shifters and shafters, propagandists and political opportunists) in regard to condeming Parncutt is a national disgrace.

Re: AllanJ –Where exactly in the US are farmers having a hard time “surviving?” They have had record income the last few years; farm land values have more than doubled in the last 4 years; they are the “wealthiest” group in the US, exceeding doctors, lawyers, CPA’s, dentists, etc.

It is obvious that farming is far from being a field in which you have any expertise.

On average, farm household income has been roughly comparable to the median for all U.S. households since the 1970s. In 2004, the most recent year for which comparable data exist, the average farm household had an annual net income of $81,480, while the average U.S. household netted $60,528. However, farm households that receive most of their income from farming experience more year-to-year fluctuations in household income than other households. http://www.usda.gov/documents/FARM_FAMILY_INCOME.pdf

The statistics at the preceding URL show that the vast majority of farm household income does come from off-farm income sources.

The situation is no better anywhere in the world. It certainly was no better when I farmed, in Canada. During many years I lost money. There was not a year, ever, when my average income (after expenses) came even close to average minimum wage rates. It was my off-farm job that kept our farm going — that, and the fact that I did all of of the repairing and construction work that needed to be done (on average, one hour of field work required two hours of swearing and repairing).

More than 50 percent of Canada’s farmers have major, off-farm employment, and the average age of Canadian farmers is about 67 (about 20 years ago it was 62 years).

However, if you think that farming is such a profitable endeavor, why don’t you get yourself a farm and get set for life? The very least you will get out of that is a good education.

losing his tenure is not an option when it comes to CAGW zealots. btw here’s another moving into the limelight:

27 Dec: WaPo The Fix Blog: Sean Sullivan: Who is Brian Schatz?
Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie (D) tapped Lt. Gov. Brian Schatz (D) on Wednesday to fill late Sen. Daniel Inouye’s (D) seat…
After college, Schatz returned to Hawaii, where he briefly taught at Punahou and worked in the nonprofit sector. His Punahou alumni profile says he founded the nonprofit Youth for Environmental Service…
Schatz may also emerge as a vocal senator on the issue of climate change. Abercrombie tapped him to lead a clean energy effort as lieutenant governor. He called climate change “the most urgent challenge of our generation” in remarks on Wednesday.

Parncutts statement is even more unbelievable reading that he is a member of Amnesty International. I’m amazed that someone can truly believe that the death penalty is wrong in all cases and then advocate its use against people for their beliefs.

I’m glad that WUWT readers and others were able to get the university to take action and send such a clear statement.

Here in UK, the common politician-speak along the lines of “If anyone was offended, I apologise to them…” is known as a non-apology apology. Or in other words, I’m not apologising for my sentiments, only for the fact that it might have upset some of you.

Congratulations to Jo Nova, to Anthony and to everyone who wrote to Professor Parncutt and to the University of Graz. This is actually an important victory, because it establishes that skeptics can no longer be treated with the utter contempt that has been evident in some quarters – and particularly in academe – for far too long.

In my submission, now that the Professor has made an unconditional apology, and provided that he and his university have indeed removed the offending postings, we should regard the matter as closed.

My correspondence with him and with the office of the Rektorin of the University of Graz follows.

Subject: Death penalty for legitimate scientific dissent

.oOo.

Monckton of Brenchley to Parncutt

Dear Professor Parncutt, – The unhappy history of Austria under the Anschluss should surely lead one to consider the unwisdom of demanding death for those scientists and researchers who today legitimately dissent from the apocalypticist notion that our altering 1/3000 of the atmosphere by 2100 will lead to the deaths of hundreds of millions of people.

May I ask you publicly to withdraw your dangerous and offensive demand? Otherwise, the law of Austria – designed precisely to avoid a repeat of the murderous, anti-scientific approach adopted by the National Socialist Workers’ Party of Germany, an approach that you now unspeakably revive – will have to be brought to bear, and you will be prosecuted for your hate-crime.

Since an image of your offending statement was cached before your University realized that you had committed a crime and ordered you to remove your poisonous demand from its website, the evidence against you is clear.

A complaint will go to the Austrian prosecuting authorities unless you are able to notify me within 14 days that you have extinguished your crime by withdrawing your call for the death penalty for the likes of me. – Monckton of Brenchley

.oOo.

Parncutt to Monckton

Dear Sir, – Thank you for your message. In response to this and other emails i have completely rewritten my posting. I hope that you prefer the new version. Yours sincerely, – Richard Parncutt

.oOo.

Monckton to Parncutt

Dear Professor Parncutt, – I regret that your new posting does not withdraw but instead repeats your unspeakable suggestion of the death penalty for those with whom (on no discernible ground that would be recognized as scientific) you disagree on the question of the climate.
However, I gave you 14 days publicly to withdraw that suggestion, of which 10 days remain. After that, a report will go via Interpol and separately via the British Embassy in Wien to the Austrian prosecuting authorities, with a copy to the Rektorin of your University, to whose office I am copying this correspondence by way of early notice.

I am also having the question whether your murderous, anti-scientific hate-crime constitutes an offence under the law of Australia, your state of origin, and whether your hate-crime – as an incitement to terrorism – is an offence grave enough to merit trial by the International Criminal Court, to whose founding treaty both Austria and Australia are States Parties.
I have also asked for a review of the question whether your university and your Rektorin, in continuing – astonishingly – to host this criminal matter on the official website even after several people have drawn your hate-crime explicitly to the Rektorin’s attention in writing, may be acting as conspirators with you in this hate-crime. It will surely be in your interest, and in the interest of your university, to reconsider this matter. – Monckton of Brenchley
.oOo.

I hereby withdraw, in their entirety, both texts that were previously posted at the above address (dated 25 October 2012 and 25 December 2012 respectively). I apologize for, and deeply regret, any offence that my texts may have caused to you or anyone else.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Parncutt

.oOo.

Monckton to Parncutt

Dear Professor Parncutt, – Thank you very much for your unconditional apology and for your entire withdrawal of both versions of your posting. The matter is now closed. – Monckton of Brenchley

the University of Graz points out clearly that a personal and individual opinion which is not related to scientific work cannot be tolerated on websites of the University.

With David M. Hoffer’s request:

The university owes the world not simply an apology for what appeared on their web site, but a strong and unequivocal statement denouncing this blatant attempt to silence the debate by threat of violence.

The right of free speech, religious belief and exercise were preserved through costly excesses.
America’s Founders refused to ratify the Constitution until it included a Bill of Rights including:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Whereas the late King James the Second, . . .did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom; . . .
By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates for humbly petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed power; . . .
the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, . . .
That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;

Beware the new “politically correct” Inquisition. It would have been better for the University to post a strong opposing statement alongside the objected text rather than force it to be recanted.Uphold both the right to free speech and the right to publicly counter it – without destroying the careers of either persons or of those being spoken against.

In his original article that odious creature Parncutt wrote, “…..according to the principle I have proposed, the Pope and perhaps some of his closest advisers should be sentenced to death. I am talking about the current Pope…..”

That is more than a threat, it’s incitement to kill. It is the true face of Liberal Fascism. It is also a crime in Austria:

“…..many modern liberals and leftists act as if they know exactly what fascism is. What’s more they see it everywhere – except when they look in the mirror.”
Jonah Goldberg

I wonder how much of Parncutt’s apology was dictated to him by his university?
============================
This is the crucial point. Would Parncutt have retracted that statement and issued an apology on his own? I doubt it. His apology seems pro forma and unconvincing. It seems obvious to me that he did so because he was required to by the university administration.

This was not a simple breach of good manners. Parncutt advocates mass violence against skeptics because of their beliefs. Does the term “death penalty” fool anyone? Hitler’s extermination of the Jews of Europe was a legal act, according to the laws in force at that time.

Even a sincere apology would not suffice, in my view, and only a weak fool would be willing to pass over this incident. This should not be dropped. Nutticelli’s refusal to disavow Parncutt shows that these sentiments pervade the camp of the global warmers. There is a lot more to be done in regard to this, which is not, repeat not, a sentiment limited to one whacko.

Other things that need to be done: John Sloboda needs to be contacted and his role in this business brought into the light. The role of the World Future Council must investigated. Remember, this is the organization that spawned Crimes Against the Future project which led to Parncutt’s “death penalty”, and fingered by Parncutt himself. Much more to do.

I’m not sure whether I should give the guy the benefit of the doubt or no not. We all say or type things that we don’t actually, literally, mean “in the heat of the moment”. Then again, sometimes we meant it but under pressure we try modify it to keep out of trouble.
I suspect he meant the original but maybe he had one to many beers when he was at the keyboard. I don’t know. His employer should keep an eye on him and the the parents of his students should keep an eye on their kids teachers.

To all saying thank you to me, your welcome, but there were many more involved. In particular, commenter “Sean” who posted the rektor’s email address. Also, the response to me was sent to a list of 30+other people whom I assume also complained. I snipped that out as I didn’t want to compromise the privacy of those individuals, but we owe all who spoke up our appreciation.

As for those hollering about freedom of speech, this is hardly a freedom of speech issue. The university’s web site speaks for the university. It is a forum for researchers at that university to discuss their research, not for the espousing of political views about someone else’s research or opinions about that research. He violated the university’s policies in that regard. There is absolutely nothing stopping Parncutt from getting his own personal web site, nothing preventing him from writing letters to newspapers or administration, nothing stopping him from raising his voice at meetings. He is free to speak his views, odious though they might be, but he is not free to use the resources of his employer and associate them with his views by doing so.

It is Parncutt who violates freedom of speech by advocating for violent intimidation of those who would speak their mind freely. Attempting to turn it around the other way is as odious as the remarks that he made.

Taken from Wikipedia –
“In crime and law, hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group. Examples of such groups include but are not limited to: racial group, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or gender identity.
A hate crime is a category used to describe bias-motivated violence: “assault, injury, and murder on the basis of certain personal characteristics: different appearance, different color, different nationality, different language, different religion.”
“Hate crime” generally refers to criminal acts that are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the types above, or of their derivatives. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).
A hate crime law is a law intended to prevent bias-motivated violence. Hate crime laws are distinct from laws against hate speech in that hate crime laws enhance the penalties associated with conduct that is already criminal under other laws, while hate speech laws criminalize a category of speech.”

And also

“Hate crime laws

Hate crime laws generally fall into one of several categories:
laws defining specific bias-motivated acts as distinct crimes;
criminal penalty-enhancement laws;
laws creating a distinct civil cause of action for hate crimes; and
laws requiring administrative agencies to collect hate crime statistics. Sometimes (as in Bosnia and Herzegovina), the laws focus on war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity with the prohibition against discriminatory action limited to public officials.
Eurasia
European Union
Since 2002, with an amendment to the Convention on Cybercrime, the European Union mandates individual states to punish as a crime hate speech done through the internet.”

I see this as more than just a University issue, apology notwithstanding.

Jim Cripwell says:
December 27, 2012 at 1:12 pm
….In any event, to me the proper source of ethanol is not food, but waste agricultural products….. All this waste product is not required for agriculture, and could be a substantial source of a renewable fuel which can be stored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually the ‘waste agricultural products’ should be returned to the land as organic matter that increase water retention, nutrients…. Not returning the organic matter to the soil eventually means the soil becomes less and less productive. My farm was sold cheap because it was 98-99% pure clay per soil analysis and would no longer produce a crop. It used to have close to a meter of the best top soil in the area. Unfortunately as leased land nothing was done to protect the farmland. I am slowly rebuilding the topsoil by using it as pasture.

Corn the most common crop for biofuel and is very hard on the soil.

It’s all the more discouraging because American farmers had reduced soil erosion by about 40 percent between 1985 and 1995, largely due to government policies like the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). But CRP programs are now taking a back seat to the desire to cash in on the biofuel bonanza. Erosion is ignored while the US government provides billions of dollars in subsidies for biofuels. “Biofuels and climate change are real threats to America’s soil health,” Cox says.

Farmers are eagerly plowing up CRP lands, pastures, and highly erodible land to grow corn — 12 million additional acres of corn in 2007 alone — so they can profit from the ethanol boom. Ethanol is mainly made from corn, and the federal government hopes the US will be producing 35 billion gallons of the stuff by 2017. Reaching that goal would turn much of the US into a giant cornfield and has already doubled the price of corn in the past two years. Corn is particularly hard on the soil, requiring plenty of fertilizer, water, and pesticides. Cox says ethanol has sparked a “gold-rush mentality” among farmers who are mortgaging the future health of their soils for short-term profits. “There’s no question that the ethanol boom is increasing erosion.”

Not surprisingly, land prices and rents in the corn belt have jumped upward, creating additional pressure to “mine the soil to pay the mortage.” Farmland has been a popular investment for many years, and in some states, half of all farmland is rented. This reduces the incentives for soil conservation, since the farmer who works the field is not the permanent caretaker of the land. Ethanol-driven land degradation will not disappear even if the much-touted cellulosic ethanol technology is commercialized. The cellulosic process uses crop residues like corn stalks and wheat straw (rather than grains like corn or soy) to make ethanol. While cellulosic ethanol won’t directly use food as fuel, the loss of crop residues would further expose soils to erosion. And it would also reduce organic matter in soils, greatly diminishing their fertility, Cox says. “I’m very concerned there will be serious consequences for soils if cellulosic ethanol goes forward.”Source

Monckton of Brenchley says: December 27, 2012 at 3:19 pm
“we should regard the matter as closed.”
================================
I could not disagree with you more. Parncutt’s offense was not a simple breach of good manners, to be mended by an apology, but something far more serious. His comments comtemplate genocide, and I myself was to be one of the proscribed, according to my science convictions. It is my opinion that Parncutt’s “death penalty” is silently approved by many radical Greens who themselves hold neo-facists views and who would mimic Hitler’s acts of extermination, if they were given the opportunity. Parncutts would-be prosciption touches on the shadowy workings of such organizations as the World Future Council, which see. The refusal of certain prominent members of the other camp to put distance between themselves and the pronouncements of Parncutt confirm me in this, I feel. This matter should not be left as it is now. It is far from closed.

Bloke down the pub says: “Only time will tell how it affects his promotion prospects.”

Not good once he watered down his statements. However, it was his apology that axed any chance of him being considered as a replacement for Lisa Jackson. Although if he would agree to water-boarding of pulp-ring data, he might have a chance at one mann’s position.
/sarc off

the absurd waste of burning food in your car’s engine.
===============================
This thanks to the agricultural lobby. The use of grains to manufacture ethanol pushed the price of food through the roof. In effect, ethanol constitutes a price subsidy and was meant as such. It succeeded fabulously and you now susidize agriculture at the gas pump. The alternative to ethanol is methanol, which can be produced very cheaply, compared to ethanol. All this talk about poor farmers belongs to another era. I know farmers who are quite wealthy.

Arthur Dent says:
December 27, 2012 at 12:16 pm
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I second that.

It is not as if he has influenced goverrnment policy on any climate related issue. He is in no way responsible for governmental responses to the perceived threat of global warming and quite frankly his views on global warming and CAGW are of no importance whatsoever.

His views did not make sweet music, but he is as entitled to his opinion (however odious) as is the next man.

On behalf of all Melbournians (of which I am one), I wish to unconditionally apologise to all of you for the academics that seem to originate from this once great city. It was not that long ago that Melbourne was regarded as one of the great scientific cities of the world, now it seems to be known for insane academics.

I agree with David Hagen. University-imposed speech codes represent privatized totalitarianism. They train people to believe that censorship is good when it enforces their sincerely held beliefs.

The University of Graz would have served its mission of education far better by inviting Richard Parncutt to debate his position publicly. That might have involved his entry here on WUWT and/or hosting comments on his own page. The contest of ideas is, after all, the heart of any honest university.

What better way to deflate Richard Parncutt’s violent rhetoric than to employ rational criticism to shoot it down in flames? After reading his argument, there’s no doubt that it would not survive scrutiny. The intellectual fatuity of SkS and DeSmogBlog would become implicit in Mr. Parncutt’s ethical illegitimacy.

As it is, the University has forced Mr. Parncutt to remove his essay; a disappearance that would not have happened otherwise. Mr. Parncutt himself has offered his regrets, also consequent to University pressure. He would not have done that otherwise, either.

After all, his essay represents his fully considered view. It is suffused with righteous anger. Why would he voluntarily have removed it, or regretted it?

So, Mr. Parncutt’s regrets are very likely insincere. He almost certainly hasn’t changed his mind. He probably continues to believe his conclusions because they have not been subjected to public critical scrutiny. He’s only been forced into silence. His ideas will go underground. His fellow-travelers will resent the censorship, and justifiably so.

I don’t see any good coming from a censorious conclusion of the Parncutt affair.

wayne Job says: “I shall be applying to the Guiness book of records such that this accomplishment shall be recorded, proving we have the largest collection of idiots and champions of the world in that catagory.”

I am truly sorry to say this, but we got you beat hands down, mate.
We have Washington D.C., the breeding ground of the elite of the Elitist educated idiots. We can actually send intelligent people to Washington D.C., and with in a few months, they can’t even do basic math, i.e. balancing a checkbook.

David, you wrote, “As for those hollering about freedom of speech, this is hardly a freedom of speech issue. The university’s web site speaks for the university.”

The university should speak for freedom of speech.

I don’t blame you for notifying the University about Mr. Parncutt’s essay. I just think the university’s response violated their own mission. It would have been far better to have required Mr. Parncutt to expose his ideas to free debate, as an alternative to taking down his essay. Honestly, I don’t think you are at all justified in characterizing as “odious” support for free speech and against censorship by a university.

“It is not understandable why such a person can be on the payroll of an university and is not in jail”
Now lets see – If I was to write similar words about climate alarmists (or in fact refer to anyone in this way) I would certainly be dismissed from my employ, possibly without my feet touching the ground – but then I’m not a muso and not employed by the Uni of Graz.

However, he should not fear … there is a well paid job and pension for life waiting for him in radio and/or television at Australia’s ABC, or even a seat in Australia’s current carbon dioxide taxing government.

If he was to return to Ossie he would likely enter parliament as a Labour party ‘star’. Parncutt’s plan would surely reduce un-employment levels, lower numbers of elderly Australians (reducing the ‘economic burden’ they have on the economy) and create employment (in the funeral industry)…. All top near the top of the list of Gillard’s Government policy.

My question is this… Would his plan involve incineration of the dead skeptics or burial of the decaying bodies? Both will produce greenhouse gases and clearly add to his ‘climate problem’.

Once again I propose a WUWT “Hall of Shame”. These extremists deserve proper recognition for the disservice they have done to their cause. Ultimately they ought not to be shut up but exposed. Properly executed such a concept could provide an invaluable resource for revealing the “mind” of the eco-machine. Healthy, human oriented viewers would be properly appalled and thus inoculated against their madness. These nutbars are our best weapon, lets use it!

It appears to me that fear of criminal prosecution by current Austrian law brought about the retraction. Call it censorship if you want, but it appears from Monckton’s posting that there was an issue of enforcing existing laws and what the outcome would be for Parncutt et al. Methinks that legal counsel strongly recommended the course of action taken by Parncutt & U of Graz.

Pat Frank says: December 27, 2012 at 4:47 pm
========================================
Freedom of speech is not an absolute and utterly unfettered freedom. Any professor has responsibilities and these include deportment and teaching. Any person on a public payroll is subject to public indignity if he merits it. These are the facts of life. You uphold ideals, and that’s fine, but hard realities impose themselves and if someone says “I will kill you for that” he has broken the law in some countries and could go to jail. Parncutt has advocated genocide as a solution to the debate on an issue of science. He deserves censure. Please do not pretend that it is merely a matter of exercising one’s freedom of speech. As one on his list of proscribed, I reject this notion.

And with help from the UN they help unify action of NGOs across the world. (just google NGO and GEF)

I’d suggest that the record shows that the UN has been largely responsible for the ever-increasing proliferation of NGOs who’ve gotten far to big for their britches. As I have noted elsewhere, the UN actually fosters the “thinking” of the likes of Parncutt.

A “mandated priority area” of the UN’s “Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (hands up all who even knew that such a Commission even exists!) is:

Promoting the role of criminal law in protecting the environment

Parncutt’s performances and “aplologies” in the light of criticism are reminiscent of Franny Armstrong’s antics in lieu of apology on the heels of her 10:10 No Pressure disaster.

Bu,t I suppose, to his credit – unlike Armstrong – Parncutt has not tried to claim that his words of incitement against those who do not share his ill-informed views constituted an attempt at “humour”.

Regarding the University’s rights to have Parncutt remove those comments:
He is/was their employee, using the University’s resources. They have every right (and indeed legal obligation) to control what appears on their web site; including what is with the “personal” pages of staff and students.

Parncutt can get web space outside of the University to extol the virtues of His Struggle. The fact that he didn’t publish his personal ideology by such means already says a great deal about the man’s outlook.

Lord Monckton is IMHO incorrect in stating that the matter is closed. If a crime has occurred, then an apology is not a replacement for due process.

mpainter, I’m proposing the standard “hard reality” of exposing lurid and violently stupid opinions to public criticism. Oxygen is the best disinfectant in these cases. Suppression leads to suppuration and festering resentment, outcomes to be actively avoided.

Mr. Parncutt hasn’t advocated “genocide,” the race-prejudiced elimination of a people. He has defined a thought crime and advocated mass murder as a solution; standard ideological intolerance carried to its logical conclusion. The latter is actually the more dangerous because it transcends race politics, which is always provincial, and achieves a call to murderous action that is unlimited and global and never reaches a finale. Witness the 20th century or religious history.

The really curious aspect of Mr. Parncutt’s position is that, like all AGW believers, he has swallowed the polemical demonology and credits the testimony only of those who share his politics. I.e., Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann over John Christy and Richard Lindzen. All four are equally qualified in a formal sense. And yet Mr. Parncutt, consciously ignorant of the science, nevertheless chooses to believe the former two over the latter. The existence of a debate neither fazes him nor makes him circumspect. This is very peculiar, and Mr. Parncutt, if he is reading this, ought to pay strict attention to this mental lacuna. Though typically human, it’s a real failing. Awhile back, I had an email conversation about AGW with Anna Eschoo, my local Representative to Congress. She has done the same thing — made a partisan choice about which experts to believe — and when I pointed that out to her our conversation ceased.

I’m a little confused by some of the free-speech defenders who have commented above. They seem to be saying that Parncutt has every right to use his employer’s website to call for my execution, but I do not have the right to express an opinion that he should be fired. Which opinion is more extreme? Which one calls for violence? If you think it is valid free speech for him to call for the execution of those who disagree with him, would you feel the same way if he said he was going to blowup your child’s school because scientific consensus says the world is overpopulated?

I don’t have the ability to fire Mr. Parncutt. I can only express an opinion about it. So why should his opinion receive more protection than mine? Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in calling for the censorship of one opinion in order to preserve the free-speech rights of another?

Comments like Parncrutt’s are very insidious. They pave the way and excuse ever more egregious comments — until the innocent target is so completely demonized that society turns a blind eye to the true victims, in this case those whose only ‘crimes’ are having a different scientific point of view. It happened in the 1930’s, and make no mistake: it is happening again. Parncrutt is clearly suggesting fatal violence against those he disagrees with.

We can see how similar demonization of law abiding citizens works here. Demonizing those Parncrutt disagrees with is a vicious Saul Alinsky tactic widely used by the totalitarian Left, which even includes the current U.S. president.

An apology is not sufficient. Parncrutt’s apology is insincere; written with a wink and a nod to his friends and co-workers. Parncrutt is just playing the game. Only his prompt termination would have been sufficient to derail the escalation of these threats. But that is unlikely to happen, and so the demonization of scientific skeptics will continue.

Someone near the beginning of this thread was unfamiliar with the discipline of musicology. As a retired musicologist, let me state briefly that musicology is the study of the literature (i.e., the music itself) and the history of music, including such related matters as aesthetics, theory (including as a historical discipline), instrument families and construction, and–in short–anything to do with music and its history. Unfortunately, in recent decades historical musicology (as well as ethnomusicology) has been tainted with the ugly stain of Political Correctness in all its forms and ramifications, of which Prof. Parncutt seems to be a prime exemplar. As a musicologist, he has no expertise or authority concerning climate science; you may note that my own comments on this excellent site are often commendatory but never deal directly with science, since I am a musicologist, not a climate scientist. Now, if you wish to know about dissonance treatment in many-voiced polyphony in the early Renaissance, or yet keyboard performance practice in the late 18th century, then I’m your man . . .

Now, if you wish to know about dissonance treatment in many-voiced polyphony in the early Renaissance, or yet keyboard performance practice in the late 18th century, then I’m your man . . .

Well then, let me be the first to ask such a question. 8<)

Have you read the instruments, music (and ballet) themed short stories in the 1632 alternative universe of the Granville Gazettes and their formative 1632-1633-1634-1635 science fiction novels?

Beautiful written stories about 1630-era German Italians and Dutch composers, musicians and dancers (and their church and secular sponsors) trying to come to terms with 20th century music and instruments being introduced into their world ….

People like Richard Parncutt actually need our help to protect them from the lies and deceit propagated by the media. It is those disreputable con artists at the IPCC and UEA and other research grant seeking scientific “alarmists” who actually do know better that really deserve our scorn. A musicologist is as much a victim as most others of one of the biggest scams ever perpetrated on the human race.

Thanks to those who made the effort to write to the University of Graz and deal with this issue, especially to David M Hoffer for his well worded letters, and to Monckton of Brenchly for his equally well worded and brutally effective ones.

However we should not imagine Parcutt is sitting there feeling contrite. He is undoubtedly seething with rage and humiliation that his “righteous” clarion call has been so “unreasonably” silenced.

Richard Parncutt GRAZ, AUSTRIA 3 months ago Liked 0
I have always been opposed to the death penalty. But influential climate change deniers can indirectly cause millions of deaths in the future. These are genocidal dimensions and the culprits should be tried accordingly.

It appears that Lord Monckton’s actual threat of legal action was what got the fellow to immediately apologize and withdraw. I think this is what should be done to Mann etc. Surely University laws etc expressly forbid Fraud?

Pat Frank says: December 27, 2012 at 4:47 pm “Honestly, I don’t think you are at all justified in characterizing as “odious” support for free speech and against censorship by a university.”

Pat, In the first WUWT blog I argued several times that a call to arms and rapid execution might not be the best course. It closes off exploration of what made the man speak this way.
I was moderately criticised for being soft. I’m not soft, but there are more subtle ways to get inside the mind of the person and having done so, to learn to your advantage.
I would be fascinated to know which concepts formed his “tipping point”. But others now seem to have closed off that avenue, not the least his present University.
To conclude my earlier analogy, perhaps the nurse had dislexia when she repeated that “He will feel better after we prick his boil.” Surgical procedures typically take planning, time and skill, not hand grenades.

Richard Parncutt – “Lawyers will see this situation differently, of course. According to current law you cannot exact a criminal sentence of murder on someone for deaths that have not yet happened, and might not happen if -”

Clearly Parncutt knows what he is advocating is Legally wrong. Thus, Richard also knows it is Morally wrong, otherwise we would not have such a Legal requirement. Yet, Parncutt persists…

***************************************************

Richard Parncutt – “If a jury of suitably qualified scientists estimated that a given GW denier had already, with high probability (say 95%), caused the deaths of over one million future people, then s/he would be sentenced to death.”

Guilty, not by a jury of peers; but by a stacked group with bias against the accused
Guilty, not by facts; but by estimations or assumptions
Guilty, not by evidence; but by possibilities or speculations

***************************************************

Richard Parncutt – “The sentence would then be commuted to life imprisonment if the accused admitted their mistake, demonstrated genuine regret, AND participated significantly and positively over a long period in programs to reduce the effects of GW (from jail)”

Not much different than say, Spanish Inquisition or Salem Witch Trials.
Absolute and undeniable intimidation.

***************************************************

Richard Parncutt – “And like them I have freedom of speech, which is a very valuable thing.”

Freedom of speech is a very valuable thing, so long as you agree with Parncutt.

***************************************************

Richard Parncutt – “I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases, …”

Speak with forked tongue much, Richard? (Also see previous)

***************************************************

Richard Parncutt – “…how the Pope and his closest advisers should be punished for their consistent stand against contraception in the form of condoms.”

New Legal Precedent according to Parncutt: A person can be held accountable for the bad judgement or irresponsible actions of others. Expanded: A person can be held accountable not for forcing someone to do something, but for merely making a suggestion that might not be in their best interest.

markx;
However we should not imagine Parcutt is sitting there feeling contrite. He is undoubtedly seething with rage and humiliation that his “righteous” clarion call has been so “unreasonably” silenced.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Agreed, that is probably exactly what he is doing. Nothing prevents him from using private resources to advocate for his private opinion however. He’s only been prevented from using his employer’s resources to advocate for his private opinion.

For me however, this was never about changing his mind. This was about the university. Their choices were to endorse, ignore, or condemn his comments. They chose to condemn them, and that is of vital importance in a civil society. When hate speech is ignored, it becomes bolder. When condemned, it retreats. When endorsed… it is time to change your name and flee to a country where they don’t care about that particular topic.

I’m pleased (and relieved) to see that the the U of Graz has done the right thing by condemning what was said.

Dr. John M. Ware
December 27, 2012 at 6:15 pm
###
You probably know already, that the readers of this blog have a wide range of interests other then climate. Don’t be surprised if you get some questions. Actually you happen to have touched on something that I have been wanting to learn about, and that is the transition from the formalisms of late Baroque to the more harmonically complicated early Renaissance. I have been meaning to ask my roommate about this for some time, but we usually talk about the physical sciences, computer programming, and politics.

His degree is in piano performance. He tells me that even though Musicology is dominated by Marxist thought, it is not by nature a Marxist discipline. I have my doubts. He once played a piece by Rakhmaninov. It was gorgeous. When I proclaimed that I had never heard it before, he said, “I know. This is one of the pieces that academia has tried to disappear. No one plays it.”

“Mr. Parncutt hasn’t advocated “genocide,” the race-prejudiced elimination of a people.”
“Suppression leads to suppuration and festering resentment”
==========================
My dictionary does not limit genocide to extermination based on race, ethnic, political and religious grounds. I say genocide, and the word fits.

Do you really wish to see debated at places like the University of Graz (or Penn State or UCAL Berkeley, or UColorado, etc.,) the proposition that you should be proscribed and executed? In places like that, skeptics are seen as criminals. Do not be foolish, you could lose the debate at such places.

“Suppuration and festering resentment” because they cannot advocate liquidation of the skeptics? May they fester their britches into knots.

I disagree that having this article removed and requiring an apology abridge free speech.

As has been pointed out many times before in other discussions, the right to free speech is not untrammelled anywhere, and there are good reasons for this.

In the case under review, I have no objection to Parncutt expressing his views – indeed, as others have said, it is revelatory and does his cause more harm than good.

The issue is that he used his employer’s website to do so, and further that his employer is a university.

In general, an employer has every right to control what is issued publicly under their name – whether it be in print, on television or on their website. This is because it affects their reputation and also potentially their commercial interests, where that applies.

It has been suggested that because Parncutt’s employer is a university, he (or presumably any other employee) should be allowed to do whatever they want on the University’s website. Apart from being irresponsible in legal terms (the university could be sued or prosecuted), it is also absurd as an argument for intellectual freedom. If Parncutt had posted a controversial piece about his views on musicology, few would argue that he should not be able to do so, provided he didn’t break any laws or otherwise expose the university to harm.

But he didn’t post on his area of academic expertise – it was just a ‘think-piece’ on a topic quite unrelated to his professional role and qualifications. Further (apart from being barking mad) it exposed the university to harm and possibly to litigation and prosecution.

There are many places Parncutt can express himself, but just as Anthony is the arbiter of this blog – because he carries the can if something goes wrong – the university, or any other employer, is not a vehicle for whatever thought-bubble or sick fantasy an employee happens to have. That has absolutely nothing to do with the right to free speech or the quality of intellectual cut and thrust in academia.

Geoff Sherrington says: “It closes off exploration of what made the man speak this way.” “I would be fascinated to know which concepts formed his ‘tipping point’.”

Point noted. But I am far less concerned about what Richard’s “tipping point” was.

I am more concerned that Richard Parncutt, as University Instructor, might have planted his radical views in some impressionable young minds. With one of those minds now formulating a method of implementing Parncutt’s AGW denier justice system – as in Going Postal.

Hopefully, U of Graz is taking appropriate steps (discussions of ethics and morals, denouncement of Richard’s views, counseling) with all of Parncutt’s students. If I were a parent of a student at U of Graz, the Dean and I would be having a serious face-to-face.

Here is something to ponder: Would you hire a student of Richard Parncutt? Would you hire a student who graduated from U of Graz; knowing the University had allowed Richard Parncutt to instruct there, despite his radical, unjust (against Legal standards), and unmoral views?

Richard Parncutt seems to be suffering from neurosis by any measure. That he should be excused for his outbursts based on being neurotic holds little comfort with me. The free speech bit is a little over the top. The fact that he is employed as a university professor should imply some sense of responsibility. We need more reasonable and stable academics influencing future generations, not nut cases with neurotic personality disorders.

But I agree that it would be worthwhile to know just what pushed him over the edge.

Let me get this straight. You’re upset one guy posted an essay calling for the death penalty for “deniers” but then you post a piece saying the scientists should burn in hell. Sounds like there is a shortage of grownups all around.

Congratulations David on an excellent result. As a fellow Australian I am dismayed at Parncutt and his attitude but having been stalked by another of his ilk I know he is not alone in the world.
i suppose it shouldn’t be a surprised as my country also produced the frightening spectre of ultra-Humanist Peter Singer whose ideas include “Ape rights”, infanticide, “limited” bestiality (whatever that is) and the euthanasing of disabled people. He is also from Melbourne and ironically the son of Austrian Jews who fled to Australia to escape the Nazi Holocaust. Rather than Singer being vilified and scorned though, he has been employed in a place of major influence as Professor of Bioethics at Princeton! I have no doubt that Parncutt has been highly influenced by Singer and wouldn’t be surprised if he is a former student. It is a mystery to me that a nation built on the concept of helping the underdog and justice for all could produce such views. Everyone has a right to their own opinions, but by accepting that principal we can’t then be surprised when the lunatics talk their way into asylum management.

Dante’s hell is a literary device from the Middle Ages discussing the assumed (postulated) destination for various individuals who have finished their natural lives here on earth, then get “assigned” various levels of “storage” based that individual’s actions and decisions in his or her life.

A parody of a classic literary device is NOT a mandate nor political action. (Dante actually has no “burning” regions, by the way. )

Is that not different than a supposed university professor calling for officially sanctioned societal murder of an entire class of people with whom he disagrees?

johanna says: “I disagree that having this article removed and requiring an apology abridge free speech.” “As has been pointed out many times before in other discussions, the right to free speech is not untrammelled anywhere,”

Agreed. To understand this, it is important to remember the context from which Freedom of Speech originated. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech”.
Removing side topics: Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Thus the Government is prevented, but not private entities.

However, more to the point and matter at hand…
From FindLaw AU: “Australia does not have an explicit First Amendment equivalent enshrining the protection of freedom of speech in our Constitution.”
From Wiki: “Australia does not have explicit freedom of speech in any constitutional or statutory declaration of rights, with the exception of political speech which is protected from criminal prosecution”
Reads like, U of Graz can axe any speech it wants.

Does being a member of Amnesty Intl. provide licence to advocate executions? Is Parncutt saying that Amenesty is party to his murder advocacy?

Well, according to FOIA acquired documents published by the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) killed a staggering 95.9 percent of the adoptable pets in its care during 2011.

So… it’s entirely conceivable that that Amnesty Intl. may advocate executions. It wouldn’t be the first time that an organization partakes in the behavior that it condemns.

Re: AllanJ –Where exactly in the US are farmers having a hard time “surviving?” They have had record income the last few years;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Another wonderful example of how to lie with statistics:

On average, farm household income has been roughly comparable to the median for all U.S. households since the 1970s. In 2004, the most recent year for which comparable data exist, the average farm household had an annual net income of $81,480, while the average U.S. household netted $60,528. However, farm households that receive most of their income from farming experience more year-to-year fluctuations in household income than other households. http://www.usda.gov/documents/FARM_FAMILY_INCOME.pdf

Now that is an interesting piece of fiction. The last time I dug into US farm household income, the average farm income was a net loss of $14,000 and over 90% of US farmers had jobs outside farming.

AHHHhhh, I found out how the USDA has managed to turn the net loss into a net gain!
In the USDA spread sheet it says: “The difference between returns-to-operators and net farm income is equivalent to the net rental value of farm operator dwellings” So “farm Income” includes the “the net rental value of farm operator dwellings”

I can not find my reference for that net loss of $14,000 number but here are the actual numbers for farm income: These are GROSS sales ( GROSS is not net income like salary, you have to deduct the running expenses first)
Ag Census 2002 (2.2 million farms)
Farms by value of sales…….Number of Farms
Less than $2,500…………………….826,558
$2,500 to $4,999……………………..213,326
$5,000 to $9,999……………………..223,168
$10,000 to $24,999………………….256,157
$25,000 to $49,999………………….157,906
$50,000 to $99,99…………………….140,479
$100,000 to $499,99…………………240,746
$500,000 or more……………………..70,642

How in the world do you get “average farm household had an annual net income of $81,480″ when over 1.8 million farms are grossing UNDER $100,000 and 300,000 are grossing over $100,000. Must be all that farmland Soros and Rothschild are buying up that have skewed the curve.

My home state, North Carolina, according to the 2002 Ag Census, had 53930 farms. 5,978 gross over $250,000 and 47,480 farms grossed under $50,000. Only 171 Farms are not Family held. The total NET income for the state was $1,915,259,000 or $35,514 per farm.
Remember this includes the rental value of the house on the farm. I wonder how much the met farm income is due to the increased valuation of the rental value…..

Congressional Record 106th Congress (1999-2000)
…. In my State of Minnesota, family farm income has decreased 43 percent since 1996 and more than 25 percent of the remaining farms may not cover expenses for 2000. Every month more and more family farmers are being forced to give up their life’s work, their homes, and their communities…..

…. unless we address the current trend of consolidation and vertical integration in corporate agriculture, nothing else we do to maintain the family size farms will succeed.

The farm share of profit in the food system has been declining for over 20 years.

From 1994 to 1998, consumer prices have increased 3 percent while the prices paid to farmers for their products has plunged 36 percent. Likewise, the impact of price disparity is reinforced by reports of record profits among agribusinesses at the same time producers are suffering an economic depression.

In the past decade and a half, an explosion of mergers, acquisitions, and anti-competitive practices has raised concentration in American agriculture to record levels…..

we have an honest to goodness depression in agriculture. We have the best people in the world working 20 hours a day who are being spit out of the economy. We have record low income, record low prices, broken dreams and lives, and broken families.

We had close to 3,000 farmers who came here last week. It was riveting. It was pouring rain, but they were down on The Mall. We had 500 farmers from Minnesota. Most all of them came by bus. They don’t have money to come by jet. Many of them are older. They came with their children and grandchildren. They did not come here for the fun of it. They came here because the reality is, this will be their last bus trip. They are not going to be able to come to Washington to talk about agriculture. They are not going to be farming any longer. These family farmers are not going to be farming any longer unless we deal with the price crisis.

Right now, the price of what they get is way below the cost of production. Only if you have huge amounts of capital can you go on. People eating at the dinner table are doing fine. The IVVs, and the Con-Agras and big grain companies are doing fine. But our dairy and crop farmers and livestock producers are going under…..

That is my cry as a Senator from Minnesota from the heartland of America.

Darren Potter says:
December 27, 2012 at 9:49 pm
From Wiki: “Australia does not have explicit freedom of speech in any constitutional or statutory declaration of rights, with the exception of political speech which is protected from criminal prosecution”
—————————————————————————————————–
Not only the above, but there is Federal Law prohibiting what they term “Hate Crimes” which includes any speech that incites violence and/or hate against any group. Thus as an Aussie, the Professor may in fact have contravened Australian Federal Law and be liable for criminal charges.

I urge any Aussies here to do as I did and lodge an Australian Human Rights Complaint (the group who deal with these hate crimes). This attitude must be stopped now, not allowed to continue, or over time it WILL be socially acceptable to exterminate sceptics.

UPDATE2: 2:55:PM PST In an email received today from Skeptical Science contributor Dana Nuccitelli, he has flat out refused to distance himself or the SkS website publicly from the Parncutt essay. Readers may recall that Parncutt used SkS as a reference in his essay calling for the death penalty. No word yet on whether John Cook (owner of the website) agrees and no word yet from DeSmog blog. – Anthony

They must really want us to drop the “k” from the “SkS” shorthand, eh?

Geoff, agreed, I think. :-) Exposing Mr. Parncutt’s shallow thinking to full critical examination should lead all but the hopelessly extreme to reject his analysis and conclusions. For that reason, the better course would have been the university requiring him to engage an active debate. As for the patient, I hope the nurse was able to overcome the dislexia before it was too late.

mpainter, you need a better dictionary. Parncutt’s proposition is fatuous. We wouldn’t lose the debate you fear, anywhere. I agree that for ideological reasons some audiences might reject their defeat. But that’s not a loss. That’s prejudice. Better we should expose that early.

I guess the key question here is whether these are the calm, cold and dispassionate opinions of the author or whether he is a bit of a hothead who gets very het up about such things and wrote this in response to some frustration, whatever that might have been.

After all, the majority of us in the world are brought up/taught to ‘respect seniority’ and, since ‘seniority’ was broadly saying the science ‘has been settled’ for a decade or so, it must be rather frustrating and galling for ‘true believers’, ‘good little green citizens’ or the like to face the prospect of seeing the high priests of their religion being defrocked. Heretics were burnt at the stake for such challenges to the status quo in centuries gone by. Quakers who thought the Established churches were dilly dallying about faith didn’t do too much better to be honest.

If you worked in cancer research for a decade as I did, it’s pretty galling to hear people trying to disavow the link between smoking and cancer. Outliers exist of course, both the semi-alcoholic chain-smokers who die at 95 of old age, as well as the non-smokers who are struck down by malignant disease in their 40s. I had fairly strong views about local store owners who were selling the U12s single cigarettes, getting them hooked as children, but I never advocated killing them! I have equally strong views about supermarkets flooding the UK market with cheap alcohol, creating a generation of binge drinkers (who may well bankrupt the health service assuming it’s not privatised by the time they need it). Lord Sainsbury, Sir Terry Leahy and the Walton family are unlikely to be assassinated on my orders however.

What’s truly scary right now is how the weather extremes which occur every year somewhere on earth are being touted as ‘signs of climate change’. The fact that 2012 was the wettest in the UK for 100 years, tells you that 100 years ago, namely 1912, we had just as much rain, with the proviso that carbon dioxide levels were much lower and temperature was significantly lower too, apparently.

All this does suggest the question which should be asked is not ‘why is there extreme weather today?’ but rather, ‘given that carbon dioxide and temperature were both lower than now by significant amounts, how the heck did extremes occur in the early 20th century and late 19th century, seeing as how it’s all this ‘global warming’ that is the reason for the extremes in the first place?’

Math Genius says:
December 28, 2012 at 12:24 am
“Unfortunatley he also deleted the links to the leftist petitions and proposals (global wealth tax….), which could be blurred when MSM starts reporting about his case.”

In the past, the only times the MSM reported about crazy crackpot warmist ethicists was espousal of their ideas. (BBC, Liao, Radio interview e.g.)

Wow–two messages to reply to! First, to the person who asked about the instrument stories from or about the 1630s–no, I had never heard of them, but they sound fascinating! Please, if you have more information, post it!

Second, to DesertYote: Great question, which would take (has already taken) large books to answer in detail. The short answer is that the modal system that had imperfectly but largely dominated polyphonic music since its inception was breaking down, and “modern” tonality had not yet been formulated or theoretically justified, so that harmony (especially the new continuo-generated chords) in the early Baroque was often very exploratory. The transition is especially poignant and aurally astonishing in many works of the Italian master Monteverdi (1567-1642), as well as his German pupil Heinrich Schutz (1585-1672), who in some of his choral works in the 1620s simply left the moorings of tonality altogether while writing some of the strangest and most beautiful music in existence. The battle between the modes and tonality lasts until some of the works of Purcell (1656-95), though tonality has fully taken over by the works of Corelli (1560-1613), who wrote no vocal music at all and whose sonatas and concertos give some of the purest examples of tonal writing in existence; by then, of course, the Baroque, like the Renaissance before it, had settled into a strongly codified set of systems of thought and composition.

On reading the original, I thought it was quite logical, in a sort of sophomoric symposion way. What was glaringly obvious was the number of logical falacies he displays. I’m not sure what he is professor of (and can’t be bothered to find out), but it’s obviously not a discipline which clls for rigorous analytical skills. In sum, a not-very-bright lightweight.

It is found that engineers don’t believe in scientists. They use Euclidean geometry because its propositions stand demonstrated – not because they believe in Euclid. On this count, there is a gulf of understanding between believers in CAGW and practitioners of the scientific method.

“mpainter, you need a better dictionary. Parncutt’s proposition is fatuous. We wouldn’t lose the debate you fear, anywhere. I agree that for ideological reasons some audiences might reject their defeat. But that’s not a loss. That’s prejudice. Better we should expose that early.”
=============================================
Are we to reject what the dictionary says on the authority of someone as ill-informed as you? Parncutt is fatuous. Genocide is not. Its advocacy is criminal and intolerable. I cite United Nations General Assembly Resolution 96, December 11, 1946:

“Genocide is a denial of the right of existence of entire human groups, as homicide is the denial of the right to live of individual human beings; such denial of the right of existence shocks the conscience of mankind, … and is contrary to moral law and to the spirit and aims of the United Nations. …
The General Assembly, therefore, affirms that genocide is a crime under international law … whether the crime is committed on religious, racial, political or any other grounds.”

Note the “political or any other grounds.” So much for your definition of genocide. So much for your “debate” of whether it is the proper thing to do.

Some commenters have suggested that, even though Professor Parncutt has unconditionally apologized and has withdrawn his postings, he should still be pursued in the criminal courts. However, when I wrote to him I said that provided that he withdrew the offending postings I should leave the matter there. That is what I have done.

A very important objective has been achieved here. The likes of Hansen have made similar calls for the establishment of International Climate Courts, or for putting skeptics on trial for what Hansen calls “high crimes against humanity” and we call scientific research.

The EU (natch) has been considering the idea of a European Climate Court at the instigation of the usual suspects.

It was only when I publicized the contents of the final draft of the Durban UN conference’s text, which also contained a crazy proposal for an International Climate Court that it was hastily dropped.

In Australia, journalists have called for the public branding of skeptics, and also for their execution.

Now that a substantial University has retreated from this hate-speech, and in Hitler’s homeland of all places, I expect there will be fewer of these extremist demands for the trial and execution of skeptics in future.

So we managed to shout down an irrelevant professor of music because we didn’t like what he had to say. Heck some of us were offended even.

Now what? Look around you, who is in control of the law making apparatus in countries like Australia and USA? What happens if (it seems when in Australia ) new laws are enacted that shut down blogs like WUWT and Jo Novas because ‘they’ don’t like what we have to say. Will we scream “FREE SPEECH”?
Or maybe we should just demand to be half pregnant. Anything else would be hypocrisy.

Note that the University of Graz issued a “a strong and unequivocal statement” that condemned Parncutt’s statement, as per Hoffer’s request:

The University of Graz is shocked and appalled by the article and rejects its arguments entirely. The University places considerable importance on respecting all human rights and does not accept inhuman statements. Furthermore, the University of Graz points out clearly that a personal and individual opinion which is not related to scientific work cannot be tolerated on websites of the University.
Helmut Konrad
Dean, Faculty of Humanities and the Arts

So your argument about freedom of speech is with them. Your support of Parncutt’s advocacy of genocide is ill-considered. mpainter

Parncutt will just be required to take remedial “communications” courses. Any half-competent marxist-academic is well-taught to publicly hide their true intentions & wear their outward socially-acceptable personae. Just another sheep loose from the flock & needing re-education herding…

Two simple points: one, an apology for ‘causing offence’ is not the same as recognising that ‘you’re right, my ideas and arguments are mistaken'; two, his proposal involves destroying the basic function of science by threatening punishment to one side of a debate, assuming without proof that one side is ‘correct’ (the old IPCC ‘consensus’ idea). So, let’s see: on, for example, genetically modified food crops, one could say ‘Those who object to genetic modification to increase crop yields are now killing millions of future people who will starve without such crops'; or, one could say, ‘Those who promote genetic modification are now killing millions of future people because such crops will destroy ecosystems.’ The idea of ‘now killing millions of future people’ and the proposal to punish proponents does nothing useful in a scientific debate, but rather arbitrarily attempts to stifle it.

It appears that Dr. Parncutt has produced a screed of inadvertent satire. The most appropriate response is not one of vilification, but of engagement in kind. I suggest, instead, a counter-proposal. Dr. Parncutt suggests the death penalty for CAGW skeptics in 20 years if the predictions of the “worst case” scenario occur. Based on his logic, the death penalty would occur for the outcome of mass deaths due to the combination of starvation and conflict. Unlike most of climate blather, this is a testable hypothesis.

We could call it the Parncutt 20 challenge, as follows:
1. The average unadjusted global temperature must rise by 2 degrees Kelvin in 20 years.
2. The average unadjusted sea level must rise by 20 cm in 20 years.
3. The percentage of the world’s population that lives below subsistence must increase by 20% in 20 years.
4. The percentage of the world’s population that lives in countries below 20 on the freedom index scale must increase by 20% in 20 years.
5. The percentage of the world’s population that dies from conflict in the next 20 years must exceed that of the 20th century annual average multiplied by 20.

Any skeptic could sign a register for this challenge, with the statement that we would be glad to line up for our firing squad by our respective governments if the above occurs. Of course, there must be a stipulated outcome for the contrary opinion. If CAGW advocates sign on, they must commit to:

1. Submitting a yearly accounting of all income and benefits that accrue for advocating and researching the CAGW hypothesis.
2. Submitting an accounting of all income and benefits that accrue for advocating and researching the CAGW hypothesis.
3. Constucting a yearly accounting of all funding spent by all governments in direct subsidies of industries with the express purpose of combatting CAGW.
4. If CAGW does not occur, they commit to their personal (1 and 2) as well as averaged aggregate (3) reimbursement to humanity, with the stipulation that the debt is transferrable to their heirs.

I suspect that more skeptics would bet their lives than advocates would bet their wallets.

Remember when you also “believed” in “global warming”? I mean, before you started actually looking around and doing some research? I do… and I also believed that anyone who would “go against scientific consensus” and claim there was no emergency must be an idiot, and a reckless one at that.

This guy is a symptom, not the problem. And people really don’t understand that there even IS a valid opposition to cAGW. Like many people I encounter regularly, they are completely brainwashed and don’t even realize it.

The solution is education, and continuing to fight the hugely financed and SINCERE cAGW scare machine. Having been raised being dragged (kicking and screaming some days) to church on a regular basis, I have some idea just how RIGHT people are when gripped in the throes of religious fervor. They don’t “believe”, they “KNOW”.

This kind of thing will not go away soon… it may be decades more before the evidence is obvious enough that even the slowest of the slow will realize there is no “climate emergency”, and that opponents are not evil.

I have learned some things by the Parncutt episode. I have learned that there is strong sentiment in the camp of the AGW to criminalize skeptics and even enforce the death penalty against them. Their would-be legalization of genocide calls to mind the Nazis, whose liquidation of the Jews of Europe was sanctioned by laws of their making.

And now I realize that my name must be on the list of those proscribed, because of my comments on this blog against the egregious AGW theory. I have no doubt that such a list is maintained somewhere, perhaps at the shadowy World Future Council, which see. Parncutt attributed his “death penalty” inspiration to this organization, and even solicited contributions for it.

You, Monckton of Brenchley, would be at the top of any such list. You have touched on other incidents in your knowledge, and I wonder how much more light you could shed on this. Perhaps you, or someone as knowledgeable, could post here on this subject, which topic seems to be of the highest importance.
mpainter

I find it intriguing that, on the one hand, Parncutt is ready to demand that some people should lose their lives now, so as to avert unspeakable suffering of mankind in the future; but on the other hand, that he readily abandons his noble cause and retracts those demands, so that he himself may not suffer the loss of his job. Obviously, his job means more to him than the lives of others or the future of mankind. Now there’s a man of principle, deep conviction, and high moral standards.

Maybe the horrors of the Third Reich could have been averted by giving a faculty position to a certain unemployed aspiring artist from Vienna?

the Death Penalty is outlawed in most countries in the world including the whole of Europe so his call is pretty futile anyway.
==============================
Obviously the plan is to pass another law.

The Death Penalty is outlawed in most countries in the world including the whole of Europe so his call is pretty futile anyway.

I strongly doubt that your fatuous statement about the illegality of the death penalty has any real meaning to a well-intentioned troika.

For instance, the Soviet Union outlawed capital punishment in 1917. How many years was it until they started executing people? (A: 1)

Stalin had 800000 people executed in 1936-39, & outlawed capital punishment in 1947 (presumably because he’d had his fill for the moment). By 1950, they were again officially executing people.

This doesn’t even begin to touch the number of people given de facto death sentences (your assignment, should you choose to accept it (or not), is to survive for 6 months without food, shelter, or clothing in Siberia this Winter) while the Soviet media outlets were crowing that the “Decadent West” cruelly allowed capital punishment.

So, of course, when caring, thoughtful people like Parncutt call for the execution of others for the mere crime of disagreeing, we shouldn’t take them seriously. I mean, there are laws & stuff that they would have to change!

Changes suggest China under new leader Xi Jinping will continue to control internet use.
China has tightened internet controls, legalising the deletion of posts or pages which are deemed to contain “illegal” information.

The new laws also require service providers to hand over such information to the authorities for punishment.

The move signals that the new leadership headed by Communist Party chief Xi Jinping will continue to muzzle the often scathing online chatter in a country where the internet offers a rare opportunity for debate.

The methods used to force Parncutt’s retraction are not far from China’s.

mpainter
Re: “Your support of Parncutt’s advocacy”
You falsely claim I support Parncutt’s advocacy of murder or climate alarmism.
Distinguish between upholding our unalienable rights to religion and speech versus condemning the moral and scientific abuse of those rights.

@Code Tech
you are absolutely right; people are brainwashed to a frightening extent and not aware of it. Some time ago, I raised the issue in an informal discussion with some of my colleagues, who, as chemistry professors, would be in an excellent position to consider the evidence and decide for themselves. This was right after climategate, and I had related to them some choice bits from the famous “harry.readme” file that illustrated a shocking degree of cynicism and professional malfeasance.

My colleagues seemed entirely unperturbed by this information – they had accepted the reality of dangerous global warming without question, and saw no reason to reconsider; they have not changed their minds to this day. In the discussion, one colleague even used the word “denialist”. I was really taken aback to hear such a word used by a man who has otherwise impressed me with his erudition, insight, and intelligence.

If there is indeed a proscribed list of CAGW sceptics, please will who ever is keeping it add my name to the list? I’d like posterity to know that – unlike so many – I was not prone to hysterical overreaction to a temperature fluctuation so minor that it would be humanly undetectable without a huge network of thermometers and the contemperaneous invention of the electronic computer

The Wayback machine should ensure that my descendants will be able to honour my reputation even many generations from now.

Message to my great*n grandchildren….a small memorial plaque will be very acceptable. And ‘He kept his head while all around were losing theirs’ a fitting epitaph.

Pointman says:
December 28, 2012 at 7:50 am
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” – Edmund Burke.
———————————-
I really dislike this quote. “Good men who do nothing” is an oxymoron. I also dislike it when people try to soften their criticism by saying “Wrong, not evil” when “evil” is actually correct. If the results are going to be evil, well intentioned but wrong ideas need to be countered just as much as outright evil ones. “Good men” will do something.

Thanks. I understood what you wrote a bit better then the answer I got from my roommate this morning. His was a bit of information overload for me, involving pretty complicated harmonic theory. I guess it was my fault for talking about how the bass line seems to carry melody sometimes in Baroque music. BTW, I am familiar with all of the composers you referenced as my mom had me listen to them. When I was a freshman in high school I had expressed an interest in the Baroque. My mom, being a music major, thought the best way to encourage me was to give me a musical tour. She was right, as 40 years later I am still interested, and Purcell is still one of my favorites.

Let me get this straight. You’re upset one guy posted an essay calling for the death penalty for “deniers” but then you post a piece saying the scientists should burn in hell. Sounds like there is a shortage of grownups all around.

Jesus Christ! Sounds like your grasping for straws. It’s one thing to wish someone damnation put forward by a religion that has not proven, and are therefor uncertain, about the afterlife. And to activly want someone to die now because of their conviction.

Pain when your dead, and die now, are completely different.
Your to logically challenged to be a grown up.

Just a minor point to make here. When the university official refers to “scientific work” (“wissenschaftlichen Arbeit” in the original) it is meant in the sense of “scholarly.” German academics speaking English will often use the word “scientific” in a context of fields having nothing to do with what we consider to be science.

mpainter, the etymology of genocide makes obvious the meaning of the word: gen-, of or pertaining to the gene or of generation; -cide, murder of. QED. Also, the UN is not an arbiter of English-language definitions.

The best way to discredit a false idea, and the idea-propounder, is to expose the fallacy for all to see. Forcing violent ideas into silence only drives them underground, where they fester and then opportunistically recrudesce.

Well kudos to the University for posting a full apology…….. and for responding to complaints. It’s about time some of these so called ‘august’ institutions showed a bit of august-iness for a change…..so to speak.

Pointman says:
December 28, 2012 at 7:50 am
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” – Edmund Burke.
———————————-
I really dislike this quote. “Good men who do nothing” is an oxymoron. I also dislike it when people try to soften their criticism by saying “Wrong, not evil” when “evil” is actually correct. If the results are going to be evil, well intentioned but wrong ideas need to be countered just as much as outright evil ones. “Good men” will do something.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Actually Edmund Burke did not write that quote as it appears above…….. That comes from a Russian film adaption of Leo Tolstoy’s War and Peace.

This is what Edmund Burke actually wrote: “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”

To my thinking it is a more relevant and effective warning. The good must seek each other out, or be destroyed.

mpainter, the etymology of genocide makes obvious the meaning of the word: gen-, of or pertaining to the gene or of generation; -cide, murder of. QED. Also, the UN is not an arbiter of English-language definitions.
====================================
There is not a dictionary on this planet that will agree with your concocted etymology. You would do well to employ one of these useful references.

The Bear emailed Parncutt and had a thing or two to say. Happy to report that Parncutt has replied with unconditional withdrawal and apology. On the topic of attacks on climate sceptics, WUWTers may recall the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s `Science Show’ host said (introducing an interview with Lewandowsky on the `evils of climate denial-ism’) the following:

`What if I told you that pedophilia is good for children, or that asbestos is an excellent inhalant for those with asthma? Or that smoking crack is a normal part and a healthy one of teenage life, to be encouraged? You’d rightly find it outrageous. But there have been similar statements coming out of inexpert mouths again and again in recent times, distorting the science. This is what The Economist magazine said last week about the election in America.’

MICHAEL Millett (“ABC did not equate climate sceptics to pedophiles”, 27/12) further confirms the corruption of values within the ABC. No amount of artless sophistry can cover the fact that Robyn Williams did (and clearly intended to) assert that climate change sceptics are the moral and intellectual equivalent of those who would advocate pedophilia, an odious group almost exclusively comprised of pedophiles.

Rather than block this disgraceful claim from being broadcast or apologising after the event, and reassuring the public of a return to proper standards of decency, the national broadcaster exhibits complete denial of the existence of any problem. The offending comments remain published on the ABC website.

Apart from there being no possible justification for the original remarks and the lack of a proper response from the ABC, all of which belittles the national broadcaster, has it not occurred to ABC management that Williams has effectively claimed a moral equivalence between damage to victims of child sexual abuse and daring to challenge the ABC’s corporate line on climate science? Perhaps the new chairman James Spigelman can bring some sense to this debacle?

You rock! Remind me to always have your back and never be in your sights… ;-)

@David L. Hagen:

I have a core philosophy which I call “Be the mirror.” It holds that you may well have high and mighty principles, but when confronted by asymmetrical assault, the only effective response is “leveling” off of them and meeting “blow with blow”. I also learned, after a long interval of working on a psych ward, that “be the mirror” also applies to level of communications.

Some folks understand reasoned speech. Some only understand angry tone of voice. Some only understand physical contact. ( I learned this from the ward Doctors and Nurses…)

So when confronted with someone who wants an asymmetric field, where THEY get to indulge in “Hate Speech” but wish to NOT have those rules applied to them, the only answer is to “Be the mirror” and reflect THEIR laws right back at them.

The loonier side of left wingers pushed for the Hate Speech laws as a weapon to be used against folks THEY didn’t like. I’m all for “free speech for all”, but I’ll not participate in “Asymmetric Propaganda for one, hate crime for the other”. The very name “Hate Crime” is stupid and propagandistic. Ever heard of a ‘love crime’? It’s just a cover for making some kinds of politically unpopular crime more harshly treated.

So sorry, that’s a bit negatory on the “let it slide” idea. Any and all instances of “Hate Speech” by the warmistas needs to be met symmetrically and with their own rules of engagement.

They can always remove “hate speech” laws and we’ll all go back to equal and free speech…

(BTW, the best exposition I’ve seen on this is from the very rational left Noam Chomsky. “Freedom of speech must be for those ideas you find most offensive. Everyone is for freedom of speech for ideas with which they agree.” roughly… )

And while at it; the rather ‘famous’ (almost) ‘Urvater’ of the CO2-hysteria, Svante Arrhenius, also was vividly active in creating the ‘State Institute for Racial Biology’ in Uppsala, Sweden, and was a member of the institute’s board as he had been in ‘The Swedish Society for Racial Hygiene’ (Eugenics), founded in 1909. The ‘SIRB’ ‘lived’ on until 1958, when it changed to become ‘The Institute for Medical Genetics’. (info via Wiki).

As Swede, one does certainly not feel ‘proud’ over what’s been going on the past in this country – AND – to a high degree still goes on here in terms of more/less pseudo-scientific-based brainwashing. No wonder, that the socialists cut History out as major subject in schools in the 1970:s. (It is, thankfully, now being put back as major subject in gymnasium school).

BTW: I find it an absolute neccessity to keep the various countries’ representations (embassies etc.) informed about what is being told and/or published, i.e. in this ‘GrazGate’, in form of expressing one’s opinions and/or views/comments to them. I’ve told the Austrian embassy in Stockholm 2x of mine and I urge others to follow suit. Here is a link to the various Austrian reps around the World:

DesertYote mentioned Sergei Rachmaninoff, one of three great virtuoso pianist/composers of the early 20th century; the other two were Nikolai Medtner and Leopold Godowsky. I imagine all three of these giants are well outside Dr. Parncutt’s ambit, since Rachmaninoff and Godowsky ended their days as strong patriots of the United States (at the end of World War I Godowsky wrote an impassioned and grandiose setting of “The Start-Spangled Banner” for piano solo and played it widely). Medtner lived and died in Russia, I believe.

thojak says: December 29, 2012 at 2:42 am
===============================
thanks for your posting, most worthwhile. I have emailed Austria’s US embassy:

Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms in the past, but now Austria offers Parncutt of the University of Graz, of all places, and neo-facism and genocide, which see. The shock of this has resounded around the world and the world is watching: what will Austria do about this?

I am in NC. The farmland is going for ~ $1,800 per acre. An out of town 1.5 acre house lot goes for $18,900 and another one of 1.1 acres goes for $34,900. A downtown lot is $420,000 for 1 acre.

Farmland is always much cheaper per acre than a house lot often by a factor of ten.

Oh and in 2008, average farm income was projected to be $89,434, but $75,805 of that is OFF-FARM income, that is nearly 85%. And as I commented earlier farm income also includes what ever the USDA decides is the ‘rental value’ of the farm house(s) (Many farms have a couple of house for the younger generation too) so for the net ‘ocuppier income’ you are talking $13,629 MINUS the rental value.
For a three bedrm house that is $1020 to $5,968 across the USA. link

In other words the USDA is FLAT OUT LYING!

Just like CAGW, there is a lot of behind the scenes action that most people are unaware of.

The shorter term answer is Dan Amstrutz VP of Cargill and later Goldman Sachs partner wrote the 1995 World Trade Organization Agreement on Agriculture. (WTO AoA) A year later he wrote the 1996 farm bill called “Freedom to Fail” That bill completely redid US Agriculture, got rid of US strategic grain reserves and the depression era farm policies. (Please Read) Remember the privately held corporations Cargill, Louis Dreyfus, Andre, and Bunge control 90% of the world grain market and that is who Amstutz was working for. Heck they even started an AWARD in his name!Throughout his very successful career Dan Amstutz represented and championed ideas and goals of NAEGA membership While working in the USDA and as a trade negotiator Amstutz represented the goals of the grain traders, you can’t get much more blunt than that.

The July 22, 2008 letter to President Bush – remember the food riots in over 30 countries in 2008?

Recently there have been increased calls for the development of a U.S. or international grain reserve to provide priority access to food supplies for Humanitarian needs. The National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA) and the North American Export Grain Association (NAEGA) strongly advise against this concept..Stock reserves have a documented depressing effect on prices… and resulted in less aggressive market bidding for the grains.

Food shortfalls predicted: 2008
The agricultural sector was one of the areas we found most attractive in 2007. We expect that will remain the case. Long term global price and demand trends remain positive…

In summary, we have record low grain inventories globally as we move into a new crop year. We have demand growing strongly. Which means that going forward even small crop failures are going to drive grain prices to record levels. As an investor, we continue to find these long term trends…very attractive.

mpainter says:
December 27, 2012 at 4:41 pm
…I know farmers who are quite wealthy….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And I know a heck of a lot of farmers, my neighbors, who work a full time job in addition to farming. I went to an Ag school in the mid west 40 years ago. Most of the kids were farm kids and NONE of the ones I knew had a family that was supported full time by their farm. NONE

Pops says:
December 29, 2012 at 7:22 am
“I hadn’t looked at DeSmogBlog before, but I’ll remember it now because I sometimes struggle remembering the names of the many valiant warriors in the battle for truth.”

Also known as the spreaders of the Protocols Of The Elders Of Heartland

Parncutt also delighted two billion Catholics worldwide with his opinion that the Pope should be executed for crimes against humanity….a similar withdrawal and distancing has followed the intervention of the University authorities….he has been called to a hearing after the Christmas break. Disciplinary measures are being considered apparently.

“Farming, as any farmer can tell you, is unremitting hard labor in order to eat none too well.” Marquis James 1929

And so it has always been, unless you are one of the fortunate who farm the fertile loess soils of the midwest or some such similar agronomic bonanza. Check it out- farmland in Illinois presently goes for $10,000/acre and more. The better yielding soils yield profit, the lower yielding soils do not. North Carolina, where you live, has depended heavily on the cultivation of tobacco, ruinous to the soil, hence the low values. Other one-crop systems also abuse and deplete the soil. Such detrimental practices are hardly the fault of the rest of us. You bewail these hard economic facts as if there should be a remedy applied. Well, not with my money, please.
mpainter

Parncutt also delighted two billion Catholics worldwide with his opinion that the Pope should be executed for crimes against humanity….a similar withdrawal and distancing has followed the intervention of the University authorities….he has been called to a hearing after the Christmas break. Disciplinary measures are being considered apparently.
===========================
Very interesting. If true, the University will doubtless inquire as to how this musical marsupial transplanted to Graz, and what might be responsible for this odd occurence. Does Graz, the childhood home of Hitler, have some magical power of spawning genocidal whackos?
mpainter

Death penalty for global warming deniers?
An objective argument…a conservative conclusion
last updated 25 October 2012

Written by Professor Richard Parncutt of the University of Graz and posted on that university’s website.

In it Parncutt leads off by saying,

For years, hard-nosed scientists have been predicting global warming (GW) and its devastating consequences. For a reputable summary of arguments for and against GW, see skepticalscience.

[ . . . ]

= = = = =

Professor Richard Parncutt of the University of Graz thus tries to establish an authority in climate science . . . . Cook’s blog.

Then, Professor Richard Parncutt of the University of Graz proceeds to a conclusion advocating the killing of scientific critics of CAGW supporting research; that research being the virtually exclusive content of Cook’s blog. That CAGW supporting research, Cook’s blog claims, is ‘settled’ science derived from what Cook claims is a scientifically authoritative IPCC consensus formation process.

My questions are: Is Cook’s blog the necessary pre-condition of the deadly intolerance of Professor Richard Parncutt of the University of Graz? Is the Parncutt intolerance the only one associated with Cook’s blog? How about Cook’s associate Stephan Lewandowsky’s intolerance of CAGW critics? How about Cook’s blog claims that people who argue against his blog’s endorsed CAGW science are mentally ill, is that intolerance any better than Parncutt’s?

Something very funny is happening at his wikipedia article. In the german article about him someone with the publicly visible IP “188.22.49.149” is persistently trying to remove and rewrite passages about his misdemeanor all day long. This IP is located in …. Graz, Austria.

Yesterday his english wikipedia article was practically just a mention that he is a musicology professor and a reference about his craving for the death of skeptics. Today the same IP from Graz translated the whole german article into english but hiding any part about the captial punishment gaffe between sentences insisting that he’s a good guy because he’s a member of Amnesty international, he’s always been an opponent of capital punishment.

Obviously the story got bigger than I ever dreamed of and this guy is desperately trying to remove any reference and alter puclib opinion since he has to fight for his job at a planned hearing after New Year.

@ Ian
In Austria universities alomost 100% of a universities budget originate from taxpayers money. He used a website of the university to spread his ideas and used the universities reputation as well as his taxpayer funded job as a Professor to spread his ideas.
Nobody is listening to a lunatic shouting death threats from a back alley, but maybe some people do if the lunatic is a professor and the back alley is a university network.

david hoffer;
Your letter was firm and pertinent. But get a second opinion before you send out stuff like this: ” Are the deaths of those people similarly on Richard Parncutt’s conscious?” That would be “conscience”. They sorta sound alike, but confusing them is not a sign of an educated mind.

Christmas gifts from the deranged. Ridicule and dismissal from positions of authority are necessary.
What these academic experts and fellow do-gooders say in private is loathsome.
“There are too many people on this planet.”
“There is only so much resource. Huge numbers must go.”
“We, the good,are best able to decide who goes.”
“Of course we know better than the little people”
Fearful, spineless people, hence the pack behaviour,group-think, the deceit,the lofty sounding ideologies and the fog.(Its always context,but never the one we hear)

Kill all the unbelievers, followed by , Thats not what I meant, when challenged.
Then its kill all the other unbelievers but not the group of who-ever challenges them.
And then the bogus apology, I am sorry you found my statement offensive.

Whatever their intentions, actions speak clearly, we are choking world-wide on authoritarian nitwits, who form the Regulatory Class, these bureaucratic creatures have amassed more power than a tyrant, and avoid all responsibility for their inanity.
These are the true untouchables,using our social structure and laws against us.
Corrupt to the core.Govt will always become corrupt, it is a bureaucrats heaven & haven.
To free our future of this burden, all government must be reduced to basics and ruthlessly watched.

Sounds like Muller’s “I was a skeptic,” as though “seeing the light” (sic) adds weight to his argument. It doesn’t, of course. My point is that Parncutt is lying about being opposed to the death penalty, which has become very clear with his other calls for the death penalty. He is using the claim as leverage, as in: “Even I, who was so opposed to the death penalty, see it now as the only way.” Just like Muller – “Even I, who used to be a skeptic, see now we must do something.”

He’s said it, he’s been caught out, he has apologized. That does not mean he is sorry – he’s just sorry at being caught. So he will pop up again with the same message later. The guy is on a mission, trying to get extreme “solutions” accepted. This man is dangerous.

Let him go by all means, but keep an eye on him and all others who voice destruction against civilization. There are some very dangerous people using guilt and other psychological leverarge against us to go from one extreme to another. We, as a society, let them do it in “fairness” but how far are we willing to sacrifice to these people? It’s salami tactics – one little bit at a time, each bit more easily acceptable for being small and not so far from what we have already surrendered. They know this.

We are being pushed around and bullied, and it’s not going to stop until we, as a scoiety, learn to stand up and say NO MORE. We’ve let the vampires in. That doesn’t mean we should trust them. That doesn’t mean we should ever, EVER turn our backs – and for God’s sake, don’t ever leave your children in their care.

Thanks, David, for standing up against Parncutt’s hate speech and his call for persecution. That was a brilliant letter.